Planet 51 (2009)
(In Theatres as of November 20th)
Oh yeah, so there will probably be a good bit of kids movies in this thing too. I have one of those kid things around who loves kids movies and he has a father who also loves kids movies. Course, kiddo loves Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters too, but there you go....
Ok, so onto the movie, Planet 51. It seems like there is ultimately the Pixar/Iron Giant rule, you have to be either as innovative and theatrically brilliant as Pixar always is, or, you have to be as perfect as Iron Giant is, or, well, both. Anything below that ends up being middle ground fodder, some good, some lousy. Speaking of lousy, I never want to miss an opportunity (in writing a kids movie review) to mention how much I hated Over the Hedge. God that was awful. There was one good line. In the whole damned thing. One good line. Thats it. Ugh. Anyway, back to the Pixar/Iron Giant thing, you hope for things that are pretty well done (Cloudy with a chance of meatballs was one, Astroboy was another), nothing earth shattering but good nonetheless. Planet 51 kind of fits into that category.
Its overall a pretty decent kids movie with some adult humor and references that aren't too over the top. I get very wary of that, too much in the wink wink nudge nudge areas. Subtle stuff is great, but blaring shout outs get old really fast. Planet 51, thankfully, doesn't go too heavy into these, settling for more thematic references to The Day the Earth Stood Still and E.T. . The overall message is pretty easy to swallow, nothing too heavy to deal with in the theme department. Planet 51s greatest achievement is also its greatest setback. The pacing. Too often, childrens movies are done at about 90 miles per hour with no character development at all. Planet 51 takes its time, almost too much so, in wandering through its plot (US Astronaut lands on alien planet and is, the alien). This might sound absurd, but this is a movie that didn't have to be animated. Nothing that happens in it really leans on the animators. Its just a movie that ends up being animated. They could have just as easily done it live action with Rick Baker makeup or some such. So because of this, you spend a lot of time waiting for something extraordinary and get, essentially, an ordinary movie.
The voice acting from Dwayne Johnson (The Rock Obama), Jessica Biel, Justin Long and Gary Oldman are all very good. John Cleese plays a dilusional scientist that would have been much better served with better writing. His laugh lines fall flat for whatever reason, which is ridiculous considering the man performing them. I loved the 50s theme to the thing, that for some reason its the 1950s on their planet. There really is no reason for it, it just kind of is. Its cute and not particularly deep. Kind of like the movie as a whole. I guess it all comes down to ones ability to settle back and enjoy it for what it is.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Friday Nov 20th - Deaths of Ian Stone (2007)
Friday Nov 20th
Deaths of Ian Stone (2007)
I am one of those strange, few people who really like horror movies, but not necessarily to watch. For some reason, I enjoy reading about them, reviews etc but by and large, I don't really enjoy watching them. For me, the disgusting bloody stuff and overly violent scenes are kind of a cop-out, instead of a good story or script its kind of a gore movie Mad-Libs type of thing, insert stab scene here, girl walking down hallway there, freaky camera twitch effect here here and here. Especially in the last few years, you end up seeing a lot of the same re-hash stuff over and over again.
When I heard about the After Dark Horrorfesta few years ago, I was pretty jazzed. If I remember right, they had billed the first year as being 'films too extreme for normal release' or something to that effect. I'm still looking forward to seeing Gravedancers from 2007 here at some point. Anyway, 'Deaths of Ian Stone' was one that sounded interesting to me. The story of a guy who keeps dying in various ways and waking up in another life. He starts to piece together whats going on and how to stop it. So, on its surface, it sounded pretty cool. Oh and it had Jaime Murray (Lila in Dexter) so that was an added bonus...and creatures designed by the great Rick Baker. I intended to see it in the theatre during the fest, but timing and other factors prevented me. I intended to get it on DVD when it came out, but it drifted off, out of mind.
So I finally got the copy a couple weeks ago and got the chance to watch it Friday evening. Its a movie that has an interesting premise, good actors and some genuinely creepy moments, but is bogged down by abject silliness in the middle act and ultimately comes unglued. I dont want to go into too much plot recapping, thats what IMDB is for. The first half of the film is very enjoyable, the mystery of whats going on and why is handled very well, with some great, chilling scenes outside his girlfriends house and later in his apartment. Anytime you are in a car outside a house and a random swing starts to swing by itself, you know you have problems.
As the story progresses, Ian (Mike Vogel of Cloverfield) is killed in a few different ways, and slowly starts to piece together what is going on. The one constant is his girlfriend (at the beginning) Jenny(Christina Cole), who is in each one of the lives in some fashion or other. **if you are interested in not having the ending spoiled to a point, dont read the next bit** It slowly becomes clear that Ian is being stalked by ghostly forces, freaky looking things that are after him relentlessly. As it turns out, these things (harvesters) feed on human fear and over time, have gotten addicted to the most potent form, fear right before death. So they've transformed from your every day, run of the mill vaporous monster things feeding on pedestrian fear to creatures out to kill folks to harvest the fear. This is where it comes apart, logically. While the idea of ghostlike creatures roaming around and feeding on fear is interesting, the fact that they can kill to get it really opens up a large hole in the logic. They could literally just stand at the edge of a subway platform and push people off, one by one without much effort. Its not a distractingly big hole, but enough so as you'd notice.
At this point, it ventures into silly territory. Ian gets advice and explanation from a harvester who doesnt really like the killing part. He explains that love is the thing that can carry it through each life and ultimately save the soul as it were. If the other harvesters find this link, that'll kind of be the end of it. As it turns out, the old warner-guy went through this. So the big reveal is that Ian is himself a harvester and is the only one that actually killed another harvester. He is being chased from one life to the next, over and over again, so they can figure out why and feed in the process. The other harvesters cant kill him, but can put him through this until he cracks. So then he dives into his powers with both feet and becomes the John McClane of harvesters, killing one after the other to stop their attack on Jenny and free his soul. These sequences are cool looking to a point, but end up being kind of hokey. By the end of it, you really want to be touched by the emotional nature of the thing, but the logic just isnt there. Oh, and the harvesters when not in the ghostly vapor freaky form, look like a cross between Matrix extras and Devo. It was a choice that was amazingly distracting. When your main character is strapped to a gurney and is going to be poked and stabbed and all manner of nastiness beyond that, and all I can think of is Devo's "workin in a coal mine" you've lost me.
So overall, I really wanted to like this movie and for better or worse, I did. For those a little sensitive about violence/gore, there isn't much. Nothing more than something from CSI or an episode of True Blood or Dexter. If the middle 3/5-4/5 of the movie was like the first half, you'd have a seriously well regarded horror thriller, but as it stands, its a good, interesting film and premise undermined by odd choices about pacing, costuming and overall theme.
Deaths of Ian Stone (2007)
I am one of those strange, few people who really like horror movies, but not necessarily to watch. For some reason, I enjoy reading about them, reviews etc but by and large, I don't really enjoy watching them. For me, the disgusting bloody stuff and overly violent scenes are kind of a cop-out, instead of a good story or script its kind of a gore movie Mad-Libs type of thing, insert stab scene here, girl walking down hallway there, freaky camera twitch effect here here and here. Especially in the last few years, you end up seeing a lot of the same re-hash stuff over and over again.
When I heard about the After Dark Horrorfesta few years ago, I was pretty jazzed. If I remember right, they had billed the first year as being 'films too extreme for normal release' or something to that effect. I'm still looking forward to seeing Gravedancers from 2007 here at some point. Anyway, 'Deaths of Ian Stone' was one that sounded interesting to me. The story of a guy who keeps dying in various ways and waking up in another life. He starts to piece together whats going on and how to stop it. So, on its surface, it sounded pretty cool. Oh and it had Jaime Murray (Lila in Dexter) so that was an added bonus...and creatures designed by the great Rick Baker. I intended to see it in the theatre during the fest, but timing and other factors prevented me. I intended to get it on DVD when it came out, but it drifted off, out of mind.
So I finally got the copy a couple weeks ago and got the chance to watch it Friday evening. Its a movie that has an interesting premise, good actors and some genuinely creepy moments, but is bogged down by abject silliness in the middle act and ultimately comes unglued. I dont want to go into too much plot recapping, thats what IMDB is for. The first half of the film is very enjoyable, the mystery of whats going on and why is handled very well, with some great, chilling scenes outside his girlfriends house and later in his apartment. Anytime you are in a car outside a house and a random swing starts to swing by itself, you know you have problems.
As the story progresses, Ian (Mike Vogel of Cloverfield) is killed in a few different ways, and slowly starts to piece together what is going on. The one constant is his girlfriend (at the beginning) Jenny(Christina Cole), who is in each one of the lives in some fashion or other. **if you are interested in not having the ending spoiled to a point, dont read the next bit** It slowly becomes clear that Ian is being stalked by ghostly forces, freaky looking things that are after him relentlessly. As it turns out, these things (harvesters) feed on human fear and over time, have gotten addicted to the most potent form, fear right before death. So they've transformed from your every day, run of the mill vaporous monster things feeding on pedestrian fear to creatures out to kill folks to harvest the fear. This is where it comes apart, logically. While the idea of ghostlike creatures roaming around and feeding on fear is interesting, the fact that they can kill to get it really opens up a large hole in the logic. They could literally just stand at the edge of a subway platform and push people off, one by one without much effort. Its not a distractingly big hole, but enough so as you'd notice.
At this point, it ventures into silly territory. Ian gets advice and explanation from a harvester who doesnt really like the killing part. He explains that love is the thing that can carry it through each life and ultimately save the soul as it were. If the other harvesters find this link, that'll kind of be the end of it. As it turns out, the old warner-guy went through this. So the big reveal is that Ian is himself a harvester and is the only one that actually killed another harvester. He is being chased from one life to the next, over and over again, so they can figure out why and feed in the process. The other harvesters cant kill him, but can put him through this until he cracks. So then he dives into his powers with both feet and becomes the John McClane of harvesters, killing one after the other to stop their attack on Jenny and free his soul. These sequences are cool looking to a point, but end up being kind of hokey. By the end of it, you really want to be touched by the emotional nature of the thing, but the logic just isnt there. Oh, and the harvesters when not in the ghostly vapor freaky form, look like a cross between Matrix extras and Devo. It was a choice that was amazingly distracting. When your main character is strapped to a gurney and is going to be poked and stabbed and all manner of nastiness beyond that, and all I can think of is Devo's "workin in a coal mine" you've lost me.
So overall, I really wanted to like this movie and for better or worse, I did. For those a little sensitive about violence/gore, there isn't much. Nothing more than something from CSI or an episode of True Blood or Dexter. If the middle 3/5-4/5 of the movie was like the first half, you'd have a seriously well regarded horror thriller, but as it stands, its a good, interesting film and premise undermined by odd choices about pacing, costuming and overall theme.
Friday, November 20, 2009
A movie a day project - start
I'm going to go out on a limb here, I think this might be kind of fun. I'm a big movie guy, having seen well into the 80s on both AFI lists of 100 greatest films and comedies of all time. I've been a movie dork for a long time, making it a point to see the 5 best picture nominees every year before the Oscars air. So I think I'm slightly qualified to write every day about film. I challenged myself a few years ago to read over 100 books in a year, which I did (including 38 books on tape too). This challenge is, or at least I think it might be, easier than that one. I want to challenge myself to watch a movie a day and write about it. I think someone once said that imitation is the fondest form of flattery, and I freely admit I am very inspired by the wonderful Horror Movie a Day blog I read all the time. It seems to me that, for lack of a better reason, it'll be good brain work to take on a thing like this. Plus, I love film, I really do. Sincerely.
Anyway, here are the guidelines I'm setting aside for myself:
1) Films can be previously viewed (not the purchase category, more as in, I've seen them before) but the idea is not to just write up favorites or (for the most part) movies I've seen 20 times. I love Ghostbusters and I love L.A. Confidential, so I really don't see the point in going over them again, at least for this little project.
2) Every day counts. There are no skip days unless its an emergency. Considering rental downloads on iTunes, my own collection, the .49 piles at Goodwill, there is no real reason to skip a day. Also, if there is more than one movie in a day, I'll write more than one. I won't do a 'geez I saw such-in-such a month ago, I'll write about that.' Even if its a re-view, it has to actually be a re-view, not a remembering back type of deal.
3) Will branch out into every genre if possible. Chances are, more of the movies will be thriller, horror and crime-type things. But a romantic comedy, comedy-comedy or any other number of genres may pop in. The idea is variety, not only of film type, but if writing. Part of this project is to write in a serial but unique way about film. Also, TV shows dont count. Even if its a DVD collection type of thing. The idea is movies as movies, not TV episodes.
4) WILL NOT employ the BS platitudes and shirt puffing styles of know-it-alls on Amazon or other places. I feel that you have to kind of like film or like things in general in order to make it work. I intend not to completely sneer at something 100% through and through. I may greatly dislike it, but the condescending approach is uninteresting to me.
5) As I can figure it out, I will add Twitter and Facebook to this thing so that the updates ultimately mean something in some capacity.
6) The reviews will be posted most often during my lunch hour during the week and as I'm able during the weekend. As lame as it sounds, I dont believe its a good idea to take actual work time to do this. Its better, I think, to use my own time.
7) Finally, and most importantly, try to provide something interesting, funny, slightly snarky, slightly insightful and a viable alternative to staring a blank sheet of paper for 5 minutes in a day.
So there we go, and here we go...wish me luck...
Anyway, here are the guidelines I'm setting aside for myself:
1) Films can be previously viewed (not the purchase category, more as in, I've seen them before) but the idea is not to just write up favorites or (for the most part) movies I've seen 20 times. I love Ghostbusters and I love L.A. Confidential, so I really don't see the point in going over them again, at least for this little project.
2) Every day counts. There are no skip days unless its an emergency. Considering rental downloads on iTunes, my own collection, the .49 piles at Goodwill, there is no real reason to skip a day. Also, if there is more than one movie in a day, I'll write more than one. I won't do a 'geez I saw such-in-such a month ago, I'll write about that.' Even if its a re-view, it has to actually be a re-view, not a remembering back type of deal.
3) Will branch out into every genre if possible. Chances are, more of the movies will be thriller, horror and crime-type things. But a romantic comedy, comedy-comedy or any other number of genres may pop in. The idea is variety, not only of film type, but if writing. Part of this project is to write in a serial but unique way about film. Also, TV shows dont count. Even if its a DVD collection type of thing. The idea is movies as movies, not TV episodes.
4) WILL NOT employ the BS platitudes and shirt puffing styles of know-it-alls on Amazon or other places. I feel that you have to kind of like film or like things in general in order to make it work. I intend not to completely sneer at something 100% through and through. I may greatly dislike it, but the condescending approach is uninteresting to me.
5) As I can figure it out, I will add Twitter and Facebook to this thing so that the updates ultimately mean something in some capacity.
6) The reviews will be posted most often during my lunch hour during the week and as I'm able during the weekend. As lame as it sounds, I dont believe its a good idea to take actual work time to do this. Its better, I think, to use my own time.
7) Finally, and most importantly, try to provide something interesting, funny, slightly snarky, slightly insightful and a viable alternative to staring a blank sheet of paper for 5 minutes in a day.
So there we go, and here we go...wish me luck...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)